Committee of the Peoples Charter (CPC) is a non-partisan political, economic, social and democratic accountability movement founded in 2011 in pursuit of the realization of the societal objectives enunciated by the Zimbabwe People’s Charter adopted at the Peoples Convention on 9 February 2008 in Harare, Zimbabwe.

Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Think. Act. Lead.

Position Paper Number 2

Issue Date: 15 June 2015

1.1 The
legal reality that is Zimbabwe’s new constitution, in the two years that is has
existed, was never intended as the ushering in of a new democratic era for the
country. This is despite the controversial constitutional outreach and
eventual referendum that saw 3 million people voting in favour and 178 489
voting against the supreme legal document of the country.

1.2 Since
its promulgation into law following presidential assent on 22 May 2013 and its
established framework for the holding of harmonised elections on 31 July of
the same year, the new constitution has taken on its true character of being an
incremental, elitist and political power seeking document.

1.3 This
is evidenced not only by its transitional clauses in relation to executive
authority, but also the fact that it has not resulted in any significant
democratic shift in the way in which the people of Zimbabwe are governed.

1.4 What
it has unfortunately led to is a continuation of the concentration of power in
the hands of executive, an expansion of the institutional reach of the same
through guided devolution and decentralization of the state, a default bill of
rights that depends on state benevolence for it to be justiciable and a
parliament that serves more as a distribution of state largess than it does
democratic oversight of the executive.

1.5 But
perhaps the most critically disparaging aspect of the new constitution is less
its incrementalist content and more its elite functionalism without any
indications of it being structured to deliver a new people driven democratic
culture.

1.6 The
signs of the latter are to be found in the already announced intention to amend
it by the ruling Zanu PF Party. Not that constitutions cannot be amended
but to change them so soon after a national referendum betrays the actual
character of the document as one of political expediency as opposed to organic
entrenchment of democratic values and principles.

1.7 It
is within this context that the new constitution cannot be viewed as people
driven, democratic or a final document that will best serve posterity. This is
argued because of the following key reasons:

a) The new constitution was a political
party compromise document that was negotiated during the tenure of the
inclusive government. This fact is perhaps what most cripples the new
constitution. Being devoid of the key political element of being established
for posterity and undermined by the political expediency that was the inclusive
government, it becomes a document that remains relevant largely to those that
at any one given point yield state power, over and above any organic social
democratic meaning to the citizens of the country.

b) The national referendum that preceded
its promulgation, was politicized to the extent of being a dress rehearsal for
the subsequent June 2013 harmonised elections. It was therefore not just
a referendum in the broadest possible understanding of the term but a cajoling
of the Zimbabwean people to accept that which the political elite had deemed to
be correct. To this extent a great number of Zimbabweans still do not know let
alone the comprehend the full import of the new constitution. This is a
reality that underpins the fact of the elitist nature of the constitution,
despite claims by the then inclusive government that it was derived from a
people driven process.

c) The
aftermath of both the referendum and the enactment of the new constitution have
been characterized by general government nonchalance as to the establishment of
subsidiary enabling legislation. This is largely due to not only an evident
lack of political will but the general disdain and disregard that the
government has toward its own elite document. A disdain that stems from
the fact that the new constitution is viewed as utilitarian only where and when
and concerns power and the distribution of state largess as opposed to the
advancement of ingrained democratic values into our political system and
culture. That this can occur so soon after the supreme law came into effect
demonstrates its clear disjuncture from the lived realities of the people.

1.8 It
is therefore imperative that the new constitution be placed into its full
political context so we come to an understanding as to its full import.

Such context would best be encapsulated
in the following two points:

a) The new constitution, given the
undemocratic and inorganic manner of its genesis cannot be viewed as a document
that is indicative of national democratic arrival. The search for a new
democratic, people driven constitution for Zimbabwe is still a journey that
must be embarked on in a manner that includes but is not limited to political
parties in government as is the current case.

b) That while the new constitution is a
legal reality that cannot be avoided, all Zimbabweans must remain cognizant of
its fundamental democratic inadequacies. Even if they were to get
piecemeal changes via some of its clauses, these gains would remain a far off
the mark with regard to the truly social democratic society that all
Zimbabweans regardless of age, race, colour, gender and class deserve.

c)And lastly
that in its legal reality, the new constitution, is not the panacea to our
past, current and future problems with authoritarian rule or cosmetic and
pretentious democratic governance. All Zimbabweans need to continue their
search and conscious struggle for a social democratic society despite claims by
political party leaders to a false narrative of arrival. This must be done with
full knowledge of our past mistakes as a country and for posterity.

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

The Committee of the Peoples Charter condemns the
recent announcement by local government minister Ignatius Chombo declaring a
seven day ultimatum for all vendors to leave the central business districts of
all cities and towns. The minister issued this statement with the endorsement
and contribution of the Joint Operations Command (JOC), a development that is
not only inappropriate but also unnecessary in order to pursue a democratic
solution to a perceived problem.

In their responses, and correctly so, the Zimbabwe
Informal Sector Organisation (ZISO) and the National Vendors Union Zimbabwe
(NAVUZ) have described this undemocratic intent on the part of government
action as tantamount to treating a symptom and not a cause.

They further asserted that however one views the issue
of vending in central business districts, bringing in JOC and the spectre of forcible
removal, is not going to solve the economic challenges such as unemployment and
endemic poverty that are faced by many Zimbabweans.

The CPC wholly agrees with the views of ZISO and NAVUZ
and in solidarity also wishes to highlight the following:

The issue of informal trade is now an intrinsic
reality of Zimbabwe’s political economy. Wishing it away by threatening
to forcibly move vendors from our cities and towns using both the police
and army is tragically reminiscent of the repressive tendencies of the colonial
state. The latter sought to keep city/town centers not only as racial but also
economic exclusion zones from the majority poor.

It is also intended action that reflects the
repressive tendencies of our current post independence government. It has
retained the economic apparatus and framework of the colonial state in limiting
the right of citizens to earn a decent living through elitist and neo-liberal
economic policies that favour the politically connected rich at the expense of
the majority poor. From economic blueprints such as the Economic Structural
Adjustment Programmes of the 1990s through to the present day ZimAsset, it is
clear that government is directly responsible for the current and dire national
economic state of affairs.

These policies have over the years led to massive
private sector retrenchments, lack of social service delivery, unprecedented
high costs of living, repression of trade unions and the introduction of an
economic patronage system based on political affiliation. Their end
results have been the current situation in which thousands of our country’s
citizens having no choice but to undertake informal economic activities while
millions others resort to seeking greener pastures in the Diaspora.

For government, through JOC, to want to arbitrarily
remove vendors from the CBD is an exercise in not only political
repression but crass hypocrisy.

The CPC is of the firm view that the City of Harare
and other urban local authorities have not done enough to seek an amicable
solution to the opportunities and challenges that come with the expansion of
the informal sector within their cities. Furthermore, central government,
through the ministry of local government, by calling for forcible removal of
vendors without a comprehensive and people centered alternative plan
is demonstrating the extent to which it is not grounded in the realities
confronting a majority of urban residents countrywide.

It is for this reason that the CPC is convinced that
government is absolutely wrong on seeking solutions in forcible removal of
vendors. What is it that must be hidden about the lived realities of the people
of Zimbabwe and from whom must it be hidden?

There are better solutions in engagement and dialogue,
processes which the relevant associations of vendors and the informal sector
have already agreed to. Businesses in the CBD must also agree that their lack
of capacity to deliver and fill in the market gap that is now occupied by the
informal sector are also reflective of larger economic challenges than mere
occupation of street corners.

Above all else, local and central government are
obliged not to act in a rash and arbitrary fashion. They must address economic
challenges holistically and with an intention to address them as opposed to
excluding the poor majority from their right to earn a living. This
includes democratic engagement in good faith with all residents, vendors
unions, businesses and addressing key causes of the desperate poverty that has
made it so necessary for citizens to hawk small goods on street pavements.